Article Tools

I was among the several people arrested on Sunday, January 31, while protesting outside the main gate of Vandenberg Air Force Base. The purpose of my protest was to criticize the development, maintenance, and potential use of nuclear weapons by the United States.

I believe the nuclear arsenal of the United States—the largest and most advanced in the world—contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Consider the perspective of countries like North Korea and Iran. If the most powerful nation in the world with the greatest military capability finds it necessary to maintain several thousand nuclear warheads, why shouldn’t they have some? Moreover, the more prevalent nuclear weapons become, the more likely terrorists are to obtain the materials needed to construct one.

On Sunday I was also protesting the American development of a space-based, anti-missile defense system. This system undermines our previous and future efforts at negotiating nuclear treaties with Russia and China. So my protest on Sunday, at heart, concerned the security of the United States and the world.

The story of my arrest on Sunday (along with six other people) outside the gate of Vandenberg Air Force Base, however, had nothing to do with the security of our country—although we were cited for a “violation of a security regulation” (50 USC Sec 797). If convicted, my fellow protestors and I face a potential fine of $5,000 and up to one year in prison. The real story of our arrests concerns the United States Constitution.

Most of us were arrested for refusing to present government identification to the military security officials. All of us were orderly and peaceful. None of us was interrupting base operations. Most were elderly (several in their 70s and 80s). We were simply standing quietly along the shoulder of Route 1 holding peace signs. We were protesting in a location and at a time pre-arranged with Vandenberg Base security. Base security officials were expecting us and knew our purpose.

If there was one group of people that Vandenberg security officials did not have to be concerned about, it was the 11 grey haired protestors standing outside the gate under the scrutiny of at least a dozen soldiers in a place and time known in advance by the base.

Nonetheless, shortly after the protest began, the soldiers came out through the main gate of Vandenberg, and, while filming us, requested that we each provide government identification under the threat of arrest and criminal charges. While they confronted us outside the gate along Route 1, the soldiers ignored numerous people in civilian clothing that drove past us through the gate and onto the base. The soldiers did not know the purpose of these civilians or the contents of their cars. In fact, had I not been part of the protest, I could have driven my car 50 yards past the protest site onto the base and left it in a parking lot without being confronted and ordered to present identification. People in civilian clothing can also walk past the protest site onto the base to wait for a public bus without being stopped and ordered to present identification.

I and my associates, holding peace signs, provided the soldiers with no reason to believe (i.e., no probable cause) that we were a threat to base security or operations. We did make it obvious that we were critical of nuclear weapons and space-based, anti-missile systems.

We refused to comply with the orders of the soldiers because, as peaceful and orderly citizens, we are afforded a right to privacy inherent in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By ordering us to present identification and then arresting us because we refused to do so—without probable cause that we were a security risk or were committing a crime—the soldiers violated our protection against unlawful search and arrests under the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the soldiers singled us out on the basis of our protest (while ignoring other civilians who actually penetrated the base gate) violated our right to free speech under the First Amendment.

When I was confronted by the soldiers, I declared that I had no intention of compromising base security and operations. I admitted that I had a government-issued identification on my person, but refused to present it because of my Constitutional protections. Ironically, no soldier or security official ever looked at my government issued identification while I was arrested, handcuffed, searched, had the contents taken out of my pockets (including my wallet with my identification); finger printed, photographed, and released. In fact, the soldier writing out my citation simply trusted me to state my correct name, age, address, and Social Security number.

If it was so vital for security purposes that my failure to present a government issued identification outside the base gate should lead to my arrest and possible imprisonment, why didn’t any Vandenberg base official look at my government-issued identification while I was in their custody for hours inside the base gate?

Nothing is more detrimental to American freedom and security than a military that ignores the rights of peaceful and lawful citizens. Americans don’t need intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads to keep them safe; they need their soldiers to uphold and defend the law of the land.

Scott Fina, of Santa Maria, is a former trooper with the New Jersey State Police. He served for several years on its special teams unit, where he worked with the Secret Service in protecting President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. Bush. He has a Ph.D. in political science from Temple University. This is the first time he has ever been arrested for anything.

Comments

Amazing the military has let themselves become so transparent concerning an individuals rights. It's a big game to them,,just like missile defense. Suppressing the very thing they claim to be defending. It shows the true depth of the hypocrisy that's alive and well in the pentagon, outf***ing standing wingnuts...way to let your community down again! I say write your reps in D.C. Let them know heads will be rolling soon if another citizen rights are violated at that base....

Sorry to Mr. Fina, and the other commenters, but you know, there are ALWAYS two sides to a story. ALWAYS! Mr. Fina's story reflects his own perception of what happened. I'm absolutely certain there are other perspectives that do not share his exact experience. We have the BEST, most highly trained military in the world. These are our children, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. They know what they're doing, and their job is NOT to suppress our people, it is to protect our country! They are here do defend our freedom. If you have a problem with what they're doing, you protest to your Congress, your President, your higher-ups. And I greatly resent anyone who says otherwise. Mr. Fina, you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, even if I agree with your position, which I do. And you chose to be there, in front of a military base. If you recall, recently a military base was the scene of a tragic slaughter of our brave men and women in uniform. Things are different now, whether you're 20 or 80. If you don't appreciate the sacrifice our soldiers are making to make it possible for you to stand in the sunshine and hold a picket sign, then move to Canada! You've no right to criticize them for protecting their security, or ours, even if you "think" they weren't screening those entering the base. I'm sorry but I don't buy that for a second. Choose a different venue next time. DON'T expect our soldiers to change policy from the ground up.

Thank you Scott for being out there to protest the development, maintenance, and potential use of nuclear weapons by the United States, and also for writing this article.

Having participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations in the 1980's, it saddens me that this type of protest is still necessary and I am shocked at how Scott and the other protesters were treated. How can anyone justify such obvious attacks on individual civil liberties?

Newsflash: the US DOD Information Agency was running a drill on the day of the Haiti Earthquake, a new NGO coordination computer program, paratroopers have been drilling since November for a disaster intervention after a hurricane in?, you guessed it Haiti. The mining firm cooperative of Eurasian Metals declared Haiti the most significant find "on the planet" with 40 million ounces of gold and $500 to 1 trillion dollars in precious metals. Elections were to be held in March with anti US government candidates once again on the ballot. Say what you want but this is the Brave New World and if you do not think it is possible to "engineer" an earthquake just google HARRP.

Drilling is the correct military term for practicing maneuvers etc., until it becomes instinctive and can be performed without thought. Not to be confused with the tool that bores holes. I'm sure you would agree, however, that there is nothing "boring" about jumping out of planes.

Interrestingly; the US supreme Court ruled on a similar issue in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004). While a state can make it a crime to refuse to identify oneself; no such law exists in California, except while operating a motor vehicle. Nor should this be confused with providing false I.D. The author is quite correct; they were not lawfully detained and this should be of great concern. Remember, each one of these soldiers has taken an oath to defend the constitution, so this should not be taken lightly.

"...A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense."

Seems to me that the original report on these protesters indicated that they were on military property and refused to leave when asked. That's trespassing and applies to one's home as well as to a military base. So what's the real story, without political spin?

If the advocates were not on base, federal, property, what were the uniformed representatives of the United States government doing off the base to confront the advocates?

If there was no probable cause, what were the military doing even talking to them?

If the advocates were on state property, the side of the road, why was this a matter for the federal government and not the state police? Why did the military not call the state police to handle a state matter?

If the military exceeded their discretion, does this not make it more than just false arrest but kidnapping?

Why did not the advocates make a citizen's arrest of the military?

This places a chill on the freedom of speech and I hope is vigorously prosecuted.

You're right Bird it you have the facts right. But you have lots of IFs there. As I said, the original report was quite different than that being presented above. So maybe its the grayhairs that should be vigorously prosecuted. Or are they just automatically believable??

I was really was arrested outside the gate where I was supposed to be. There is concurrent jurisdiction on Route 1 between the state and military--it goes for many miles. I most certainly did not want to get arrested--and had to be pushed very far to get to this point. When I served as a police officer I knew well that I could not target people and stop them and demand identification without probable cause of a threat to security or criminal activity. Quietly holding a peace sign is not that. Please come to my trial to see the facts. Perhaps I will be found guilty and then I will get beaten silly as my punishment as ricebean wishes. I imagine that will make your day.

-- Lt. Col. Milner countered that the ID regulation was clearly spelled out in a rule sheet sent to protest organizers long before the launch.“Our purpose here is to protect American’s rights, and one of those is the right to protest,” he said, adding that he sees neither the protests nor the arrests as problems. “We’re not against them coming out and protesting, we just want them to follow the rules while they’re here.” --

You were informed before you went there that you the ID regulation was in effect. You willfully and purposefully ignored that regulation, knowing you would be arrested.

It is obvious that you did this because YOU WANTED TO BE ARRESTED.

Now you can run around and draw attention to yourself because of the whole thing.

You have to expect resistance from the military. I am afraid of what may be planned next with Hilary Clinton and the UN gun control. Peaceful demonstrations today may mean violent resistance tomorrow. I know this is an unpopular topic in SB but, "Let them take your guns and they will take the lives of your kids"1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.1929 The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.1938 Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 to 7 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and 12 million Christians who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.Who’s next!

Quack, quack, quack!All the ducks may turn their attention to this article on Haitihttp://www.rense.com/general89/fat.htmGet through that and then you decide (outside of cognitive dissonance or in your case denial) since you are unable to perform independent research.

So let's get this straight: A handful of citizens exercise their Constitutional rights, by standing outside the base on public land, in a peaceful and orderly fashion, protesting a program that is (a) expensive, (b) proven unreliable (c) a corporate welfare program to enrich military contractors at taxpayer expense, and (d) largely irrelevant as regards *real world* national security considerations.

These folk were exercising their First Amendment rights; that pesky, annoying, inconvenient-to-authoritarianism aspect of American life which mandates freedom of speech and expression, for which the US military get a $600 Billion annual budget to supposedly protect. Well, well, well. It seems that the personnel at Vandenberg AFB have a very warped sense of the meaning of "freedom of speech and expression.

Maybe I forgot that, in these paranoid, post 9/11 times of maximum-security obsession regarding phantoms, boogeymen and "Bigfoot Terrorism", Americans, in the chilling weasel-words of former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, had "better watch out what we are saying".

I am not placing the blame on the lowly security grunts at the base, for they were merely obeying orders. Perhaps life on the base is getting too bland, there's not enough action, there's no nearby Muslim residential area upon which to rain cluster bombs, so maybe a handful of senior citizens on the road outside the base is an nice n' easy target for some standard, old fashioned harassment?

Really, if the multi-trillion dollar military establishment is so scared of a group of pensioners singing "Give Peace a Chance", what will they do if something serious happens? Oh right, the last time, they either couldn't be bothered, or were unwilling to even defend their own HQ (let alone Lower Manhattan); however, successful jet fighter interceptions as we all expected to happen, would have spoiled everything and the Pentagon could not have extorted $1 Trillion out of the taxpayers to fund 3 illegal wars based on lies, and a gravy train of corporate welfare and pork-barrel the likes of which we've never witnessed before.

If it's now illegal to exercise your rights on public land without some gun-toting paid goon barking in your face for identification, when will these heavy manners become the norm away from military bases, i.e. in everyday life, for all of us? The shout of "Your Papers Please" might be headed for a general revival. All it will take is another serious incident; remember what General Tommy Franks implied in a 2003 speech: "another incident like 9/11, and the US Constititution is toast".

Most people are highly reluctant to admit that they have been conned or have shown poor judgment. To inspect the evidence of the existence of a conspiracy guiding our political destiny from behind the scenes would force many of these people to repudiate a lifetime of accumulated opinions. It takes a person with strong character indeed to face the facts and admit he has been wrong or has living in the FOX bubble. Get out more? How about waking up?

@cartoonz: Your logic suggests that if someone on the base decided one needed to hold a Juris Doctor to participate in a peaceful protest at a pre-assigned place and time, only attorneys should be allowed to protest. The issue is an abuse of civil rights. Military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, are not allowed to capriciously create new rules or regulations in opposition to the United States constitution. The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not mention a requirement to present government issued ID on demand. Additionally, the 4th Amendment is applicable to this case: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This small group of American citizens (who pay taxes to fund and maintain the base, the personnel, and the property on which they were standing) had made arrangements with the appropriate base personnel. There was no probable cause, no warrant, and no legal reason to require government issued identification from these people and then to arrest them after they asserted their civil rights.

I wonder what the grandchild of a protester thinks? The legacy of the American anti-war protester is that of a coward and always will be. There is not and never will be a monument to such folks because you are not ever in danger of dying. Don't like war? Get a one-way to Nowzad, Kowst or Helmand and hold up one of your signs and see what happens. I'd bet my fellow "gun-toting paid goons" and "lowly security grunts" will rescue your ass regardless of your cowardice and anti-American rant. You don't make a difference...you play no ball...you put nothing on the line...you sit in the cheap seats and throw snowballs. Driving a Prius, wearing Uggs and a 150$ sweater while sipping Chai Latte does not make you a patriot. Load up 96.23llbs of CIF gear and go teach the ISAF patrolling techniques and try not to get blown up in the process. That, my friends, is peacemaking 101 at it's finest...

"Fraserdp" exhibits the typical response of someone with no argument: Endless ad hominems, and name-calling.

Fraserdp: If you want to see real cowardice in action, look no further than some of our top officials who evaded military service because they had "other priorities".... people such as Dick Cheney, and other architects of the current series of recreational wars. These comprise the endless parade of sociopathic chickenhawks, strutting around and wielding power in DC, manufacturing illegal wars to enrich themselves and their elite buddies, while sending America's working class kids to the "sharp end", many of whom join up rather than face unemployment and zero prospects.

Fraserdp, one of the greatest American military heroes who ever lived was Major-General Smedley Butler; he was America's most highly-decorated Marine, who, on realizing that most of America's wars have not been fought for the United States, but for private corporate interest instead, he had the balls to go public and try to educate the public with his short and brilliant paper: "War is a Racket". No cowardly, mealy-mouthed weasel-words from this hero... just a dose of good old-fashioned TRUTH.... which these days is decidedly unfashionable.

Here is a quote from one of America's consummate anti-war activists:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents".

Fraserdp: In the same way as having sex with children is viewed by the public today, war-profiteering 100 years back was regarded as an evil act without parallel... offenders risked the death penalty, for committing acts of treason.

America needs a few more heroes like Butler to tell the people how things really are, but the media are owned by the same gang of thugs who benefit from starting wars, even by lying to the people: Nothing has changed. Poor American kids are fighting wars for the international elite... and America gains NOTHING in return.

Well said bloggulator. Seriously. However, no one will ever quote you or these people that hung out at Vandenberg. You essentially make my argument. You did some research on one of my brothers and added a few catchy phrases but what are YOU actually doing? Nothing. You continue to sit in outer left field and armchair quaterback. In the same fashion as Smedley Butler I continue to serve and actually produce tangible results. You serve no one but You and exercise your vocabulary in complete safety and security given to you by great men prepared to do violence on your behalf.You are correct...I am name calling. My title is U.S. Marine. What's yours?

Without commenting on the underlying political issues (motivations, reasons, etc.), the AF is within its legal rights to request ID of people outside the gate.

Vandenberg AFB does not end at the green line just outside the main gate. Check Google maps to see the actual boundaries - it's a much larger area than what's behind the fence. The base commander has authorized protests on the base, outside the green line, but still requires protestors to comply with rules (and the instructions of the MPs.)

Short version: even if someone is outside the green line, they're still on DoD property, and can be required to present ID. If they don't want to, that's their decision, but if they're told to leave as a result then they don't have a "right" to stay.